"Three little maids who, all unwaryCome from a ladies' seminaryFreed from its genius tutelaryThree little maids from schoolThree little maids from school"

the Refrain from "Three Little Maids from School are We" From "The Mikado" by Gilbert and Sullivan

Verse 1:"Three little maids from school are wePert as a school-girl well can beFilled to the brim with girlish gleeThree little maids from school"

Wasn't there an episode of Magnum PI where Higgins organized a performance of this very song? Sorry, random factoid...

Logged

Now where were we? Oh yeah - the important thing was I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didnÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...

Ok, for the sake of my eyes, would it be possible to abide by common English useage instead of German and just capitalize the things that are supposed to be capitals?? I can't read it.

Actually it is English Usage, but the Fact that English and German should have things in common is Far from unexpected. Generally such capitalization in English is used to Emphasize certain elements of a sentence. In the reading of Documents from the Mid-Late 19th Century and Earlier, this should be quite apparent, especially in documents from and prior to the 18th Century, from both England and America. If you desire Examples of this one need to Look no Further than the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States.

As to the points of GiC. Your arguments are based on authority, which is the weakest of all arguments. It has come to the point where many people here laugh at you every time you say "Oecumenical Throne."

They are most certainly welcome to laugh...mind you many people here also openly support Schismatics, so I should expect nothing less.

Quote

Of those who were in schismatic groups and have since joined the Orthodox Church that I know, none of them were won over with authority. It is grace, not authority that draws people to the Church. But let us play along with your example, that one must stay in communion with the primus inter pares of the Church until an ecumenical synod condemns the primus inter pares. The only churches that have done that are the Uniates since the Orthodox are schismatics for leaving the Roman communion.

Except, of course, that Constantinople is granted EQUAL Authority and Privileges with Old Rome by Chalcedon 28, and thus though Rome is a more Senior Patriarchate, it is not Greater in Authority, and all of Her Rights must also be Rights of Constantinople by the Said Canon (though it does not work the other way around, Constantinople can have Rights denied to Rome).

Quote

Regarding the condemning of saints - you have already done that with your previous implication concerning Saint John Maximovitch - a blasphemy equal to the Old Calendarists that deny the grace in the mysteries of the Church. Were Elder Paisios the Athonite, Elder Joseph of Vatopaidi, Elder Ephraim of Katounakia, Elder Ephraim of Philotheou, Elder Haralamabros of Dionisiou or Elder George of Grigoriou schismatics because they didn't commerate Patriarch Athenagoras? So yes your papalism condemns saints of the past and the living fathers of our era.

YES!!!!! They Were Schismatics. How much more so for those who are DIRECTLY Under the Oecumenical Throne and yet schism against her authority, the Church has previously had problems with Such Schismatics, and had dealt with them in her Canons. To quote the 'First-Second' Synod (A.D. 681 in Constantinople under Emperor Michael and Patriarch St. Photios):

Canon 13:

Quote

The All-evil One having planted the seed of heretical tares in the Church of Christ, and seeing these being cut down to the roots with the sword of the Spirit, took a different course of trickery by attempting to divide the body of Christ by means of the madness of the schismatics. But, checking even this plot of his, the holy Council has decreed that henceforth if any Presbyter or Deacon, on the alleged ground that his own bishop has been condemned for certain crimes, before a conciliar or synodal hearing and investigation has been made, should dare to secede from his communion, and fail to mention his name in the sacred prayers of the liturgical services in accordance with the custom handed down in the Church, he shall be subject to prompt deposition from office and shall be stripped of every prelatic honor. For anyone who has been established in the rank of Presbyter and forestalls the Metropolitan’s judgment, and, judging matters before a trial has been held, insofar as lies in his power, condemns his own father and Bishop, he is not even worthy of the honor or name of Presbyter. Those, on the other hand, who go along with him, in case any of them should be among those in holy orders, they too shall forfeit their own rights to honor, or, in case they should be monks or laymen, let them be utterly excommunicated from the Church until such time as they spew upon and openly renounce all connection with the schismatics and decide to return to their own Bishop.

And in reference to Bishops and their Metropolitans:Canon 14:

Quote

If any Bishop, on the allegation that charges of crime lie against his own Metropolitan, shall secede or apostatize from him before a conciliar or synodal verdict has been issued against him, and shall abstain from communion with him, and fail to mention his name, in accordance with consuetude, in the course of the divine mystagogy (i.e., litrugical celebration of the Eucharistic mystery), the holy Council has decreed that he shall be deposed from office, if merely by seceding from his own Metropolitan he shall create a schism. For everyone ought to know his own bounds, and neither ought a presbyter treat his own bishop scornfully or contemptuously, nor ought a bishop to treat his own Metropolitan so.

Finally, the significance of Schism is manifested in Canon 11 of Carthage which states:

Quote

If any Presbyter be denounced for his conduct or behavior, such a one should notify neighboring Bishops, in order that they may give the matter a hearing, and through them he may become reconciled with his own bishop. If he fail to do so, but instead, what is to be deprecated, being inflated with superciliousness, he should separate himself from the communion of his own bishop, and while at odds wtih him should create a schism along with any other persons, and offer sacrifice to God, let such a person be considered anathema, and let him lose his own position, it being assumed that he has never had any just complaint against the Bishop.

The Only reason these Schismatics who failed to Commemorate their Rightful Patriarch were spared the Just Sentence of Anathema was for the same reason that His All-Holiness Patriarch Athenagoras lifted the Anathemas against Rome. He was a kind and loving man who prefered Mercy to the Justice that both these Schismatic Elders diserved along with the Bishop of Rome. The Fact that they were not Anathematized is an act of Extreme Economy and Mercy.

Quote

That is exactly the essence of the problem - you see the Church as an administrative entity. The Russian Living Church was an heretical body condemned by Saint Tikhon's synod - think TomS as a patriarch to get the picture. The point is that yes, there is something inherently wrong with holding communion with heretics.

Your assertation that this was a confused time for the Russian church is actually incorrect - it wasn't until later, the statement of Patriarch Sergius, that several competing groups came into play. There was at the time of Living Church only the legitimate synod of the Russian Church (which was apolitical) and the Living Church (supported the communists). As for who was the head of the living church - I'll leave you to do some much needed research on the Russian Church of this time period... it is a very interesting and telling tale actually.

And if TomS was elected Patriarch, as much as I might hate to, I'd have to give him the honour due to the Patriarchal Throne; plus, I have yet to hear of anything the Living Church did that could be regarded as Heresy. Yes they had a Married Episcopate and allowed Priests to Marry; but I can find many other Examples of both these Events in the History of the Church, the Former was once Common Practice and the latter, if it was not at one point common practice, has certainly been allowed at times. But as I said before, the situation in Russia was set aright, the Proper Synod was Recognized and the opposing Schismatics were excommunicated; and Communion has continued between Constantinople and Moscow (with brief interruptions ) to this day.

Actually it is English Usage, but the Fact that English and German should have things in common is Far from unexpected. Generally such capitalization in English is used to Emphasize certain elements of a sentence. In the reading of Documents from the Mid-Late 19th Century and Earlier, this should be quite apparent, especially in documents from and prior to the 18th Century, from both England and America. If you desire Examples of this one need to Look no Further than the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States.

It's not modern English usage. And if you look at documents of that period, what is most commonly capitalized are nouns. You, however, seem to captalize anything that's not a conjunction or article. Even if you are trying to be archaic, please stop, as it is REALLY FREAKING ANNOYING.

I would start with the Commentary of Aristenus on Canon 3 of Constantinople II and with the Commentaries of Balsamon on Canon 3 of Sardica and Canon 28 of Chalcedon.

Are these by any chance available online? Do they support your statement that anybody not in communion with Constantinople is by definition outside the Church? Because the canons these fellows are commenting on certainly don't say anything of the kind.

Incidentally, who is your bishop? I would be interested in contacting him and seeing if he supports your rather unique views on ecclesiology and the nature of the Church.

It's not modern English usage. And if you look at documents of that period, what is most commonly capitalized are nouns. You, however, seem to captalize anything that's not a conjunction or article. Even if you are trying to be archaic, please stop, as it is REALLY FREAKING ANNOYING.

By the 19th Century this is True, but not necessarily in earlier Centuries, the point of capitalization is Emphasis. Frankly, I tend to dislike modern writing styles, yet I endure them, you do not have much room to complain as the vast majority of Modern Writers use a style consonant with your preference.

Are these by any chance available online? Do they support your statement that anybody not in communion with Constantinople is by definition outside the Church? Because the canons these fellows are commenting on certainly don't say anything of the kind.

They actually address the Rights of Constantinople in a broader manner, I would have to look harder to find the direct Support for that Claim, I have been told it came from one of the Endimousa Synods, though I do not know which one, it's probably in volume 5 of the Syntagma. The commentaries to which I refered should all be in volume 2 of the Syntagma (Sintagma ton theion kai ieron kanonon, Rhalles and Potles Athens,1852, repr. 1966).

Quote

Incidentally, who is your bishop? I would be interested in contacting him and seeing if he supports your rather unique views on ecclesiology and the nature of the Church.

His Eminence Metropolitan Gerasimos of San Francisco. Please contact him and try to get him to try and publically undermine the Posistions of the Oecumenical Throne; do you really think he'll support you in your polemics against New Rome?

So when are we going to get an "ignore" function on this site? I have a whole list of crazies whose posts I could do without having to read....I'm a huge fan of normal Orthodox people, who very often don't post enough on the internet...

By the 19th Century this is True, but not necessarily in earlier Centuries, the point of capitalization is Emphasis. Frankly, I tend to dislike modern writing styles, yet I endure them, you do not have much room to complain as the vast majority of Modern Writers use a style consonant with your preference.

His Eminence Metropolitan Gerasimos of San Francisco. Please contact him and try to get him to try and publically undermine the Posistions of the Oecumenical Throne; do you really think he'll support you in your polemics against New Rome?

What I'm interested in is whether he will support your claims that:

1. Anyone not in communion with Constantinople is by definition outside of Orthodoxy2. St. Maximos the Confessor was a schismatic3. If the Patriarch of Constantinople were to (God forbid) fall into bareheaded heresy, and the rest of the Church broke communion with him, then he would nevertheless remain the Church and everybody else would be schismatic.

By the 19th Century this is True, but not necessarily in earlier Centuries, the point of capitalization is Emphasis. Frankly, I tend to dislike modern writing styles, yet I endure them, you do not have much room to complain as the vast majority of Modern Writers use a style consonant with your preference.

Can we agree that you are an antiquarian? I myself am somewhat antiquarian, and enjoy reading publications from the Center for Traditionalist Studies which use more traditional English. However, on a message board I tend to just go with the flow and post like everyone else, using more colloquial language.

1. Anyone not in communion with Constantinople is by definition outside of Orthodoxy

Nothing wrong with that question.

Quote

2. St. Maximos the Confessor was a schismatic

Not exactly what I said, he did enter into Schism, and at the time could have been refered to as a Schismatic, but as he was vindicated by the Sixth Oecumenical Synod he could not be accused of Schism thereafter, especially as the Communion was restored by the Patriarchate of Constantinople itself at Constantinople III. Something else to keep in mind, many people have entered into Schism against the Oecumenical Throne, Very Few of them have ever been vindicated by an Oecumenical Synod. The schisms tend to either die out, or if they do very well, go the way of the Latins, they continue as an ecclesiastical organization thats very existance is a mockery of the Church.

Quote

3. If the Patriarch of Constantinople were to (God forbid) fall into bareheaded heresy, and the rest of the Church broke communion with him, then he would nevertheless remain the Church and everybody else would be schismatic.

Close, try this:

Quote

3. If the Patriarch of Constantinople were to (God forbid) fall into bareheaded heresy, and the rest of the Church broke communion with him without summoning an Oecumenical Synod and convicting him of Heresy, then he would nevertheless remain the Church and everybody else would be schismatic.

Can we agree that you are an antiquarian? I myself am somewhat antiquarian, and enjoy reading publications from the Center for Traditionalist Studies which use more traditional English. However, on a message board I tend to just go with the flow and post like everyone else, using more colloquial language.

I fear I have written this way for so long, it has become second nature. This is now how I casually write; furthermore, I fail to see how a few Capitalized letters can be so problematic. Surely it's not worse than the posts I see which lack capitalization entirely, I have yet to hear anyone complain about them.

Yes, both methods of typing are irritating. Typing without capitalization, however, is done out of laziness and is thus merely inconsiderate. Typing with additional capitalization by necessity requires an exertion of effort and is thus done deliberately. Does that clear up why people take more issue with your manner of typing?

Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great

So when are we going to get an "ignore" function on this site? I have a whole list of crazies whose posts I could do without having to read....I'm a huge fan of normal Orthodox people, who very often don't post enough on the internet...

It's a message board, not a chat room, and I'm hardly spamming. If you do not wish to read my posts (which are hardly 'fringe' btw), please, by all means Do Not Read them. You're the one who comes and chooses to read them.

Yes, both methods of typing are irritating. Typing without capitalization, however, is done out of laziness and is thus merely inconsiderate. Typing with additional capitalization by necessity requires an exertion of effort and is thus done deliberately. Does that clear up why people take more issue with your manner of typing?

As I've said before, this is how I generally write, it is Second Nature to me at this point. Typing in this manner is not what takes effort, conforming to the expectations of everyone else is what would require 'an exertion of effort.' I believe that it is the Content of my posts that bothers people, and they try to take it out on my Gramatical Style.

Regarding the writting style: ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I am well aware of the capitalization found within documents from the 1700s. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The point though is that this style is hardly normal in modern English is quite strange and looks quite forced. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Hopefully you don't try speaking in a fake English accent. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Try speaking only Koine Greek when you go to Thessaloniki.

Quote

mind you many people here also openly support Schismatics, so I should expect nothing less.

ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š

Who? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I know of two frequent posters that belong to schismatic old calendarist groups.... so where does the "many" come from? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š There are of course some anti-chaldeans here, but they mostly stay out of this debate as it is an inter-Eastern Orthodox. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š There are a few from ROCOR here - but they are in communion with Serbia and Jerusalem and the MP doesn't consider them schismatics... and the vast majority here belong to SCOBA jurisdictions.

Re: Old Rome vs. New Rome... they had equal authority - which doesn't give Saint Photios justification for severing communion with legitimate Papal authority (assuming your ecclesiology is the ecclesiology of the Church). ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š That being said St. Mark of Ephesus should have signed the union documents out of obedience to his Patriarch, Saint Maximos should have remained in union with Constaninople's heretics and the Orthodox should have remained in communion with the icon smashers - yet these were all glorified saints precisely because they did the exaxt opposite.

So basicly you have a few relatively recent commentaries on a canon to justify an extreme papal positions for Constantinople, and you think that should outweigh the numerous saints whose lives contradict that? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The many that you consider schismatics (the monastic elders that I name for instance) have been luminaries of the Church in this era, leading many people to scantity. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Hopefully when you go to Thessaloniki you will have the chance to spend some time on the Holy Mountain to appreciate the role of monasticism in the Church. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Or better yet since Souroti is on the city bus system you can go to the monastery of Saint John and tell the nuns there that Elder Paisios was a schismatic. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I'm sure they'll appreciate it - maybe you could even go to the relics of Saint John the Russian and tell him that he is a schismatic for turning away when Patriarch Meletios tried to venerate him!

GiC, do you believe that the synod of Saint Tikhon was schismatic when Constantinople was in communion with the living church? The real issue is that communion with Constantinople is not an accurate indicator of Orthodoxy at any given time in history. If one were to have sided with the Living Church because Constantinople was in communion with them - they would still have been wrong.

Being this site is pan-Orthodox it would probably not be a good idea as an administrator to allow people to keep calling Old Calendarists schismatic without comment but since I am an Old Calendarist sympathizer any action I would actually take in this direction would just likely look like I am pushing my own agenda so be nice

On a personal note, I find it interesting that GisC believes the Phanar is right and so is obedient to it, and I believe the Pharar is wrong and believe that I should NOT be obedient to it, whereas Silouan is stuck beleiving the Phanar has authority that he must submit to even though he completely disagrees with it.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š While each of us has decided his course, I wonder in 20 years who will still be on the same course and who won't, purely from a human interest.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Will I be able to maintain my ecclesiastical allegiance given its difficulty? Will Silouan be able to stay submissive to the Ecumenist patriarch of Constantinople? And will GisC still be happy with the Phanar or eventually become disillusioned if things don't go his way and his high ideals prove unworkable? Who knows.ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Maybe in 20 years we can rehash this thread

WHAT THE.....To whom are you refering? Russians ? Greeks? Serbs? Bulgarians? Converts?You? Are you a " normal " Orthodox? Please let us know who is a normal Orthodox. Like GiC ( and I believe I said the same thing to you on another thread) if you find it offensive, DON`T FREAKIN READ IT !!!!!!!!ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š

« Last Edit: July 15, 2005, 07:09:44 PM by Mo the Ethio »

Logged

"Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names." - John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)

I definitely think there are normal Orthodox people and non-normal Orthodox people. Non-normal Orthodox for me means people who have non-normal Orthodox ideas. I would like to avoid reading things that I think are a real twisting of what Orthodoxy is...hello, ignore function!!!

As I've said before, this is how I generally write, it is Second Nature to me at this point. Typing in this manner is not what takes effort, conforming to the expectations of everyone else is what would require 'an exertion of effort.' I believe that it is the Content of my posts that bothers people, and they try to take it out on my Gramatical Style.

Out of curiosity are the academic standards of Holy Cross so low that you could turn in a paper that violates most the rules of modern English capitalization?

ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I never said I didn`t like what you wrote.Seems like you are always whining about the content of the threads( E.A. debating muslim dude, this thread...etc.). It`s as if you are trying to control what`s being posted on this forum. Then again , as a "normal" Orthodox ,you`re probably better suited than the rest of us to decide what should and should not be posted.

Logged

"Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names." - John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)

Regarding the writting style: ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I am well aware of the capitalization found within documents from the 1700s. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The point though is that this style is hardly normal in modern English is quite strange and looks quite forced. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Hopefully you don't try speaking in a fake English accent. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Try speaking only Koine Greek when you go to Thessaloniki.

I dont know how the Koine would go over in Thessaloniki, but I hear it is fairly well received in the Phanar. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š

Quote

Who? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I know of two frequent posters that belong to schismatic old calendarist groups.... so where does the "many" come from? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š There are of course some anti-chaldeans here, but they mostly stay out of this debate as it is an inter-Eastern Orthodox.

There may only be a few who belong to these groups, but there are many more who sympathize with them. And someone who sympathizes with the So-Called Genuine Orthodox Church or ROCOR is obviously going to have a less than honest and positive view of His All-Holiness.

Quote

There are a few from ROCOR here - but they are in communion with Serbia and Jerusalem and the MP doesn't consider them schismatics... and the vast majority here belong to SCOBA jurisdictions.

Well, I guess what I've been saying hasn't gotten through. Serbia and Jerusalem should not, on their own, recognize ROCOR, it improper and a Canonical Violation. But because of Economy and concern for the Church as a whole, the Patriarchate has not pushed the Issue.

Quote

Re: Old Rome vs. New Rome... they had equal authority - which doesn't give Saint Photios justification for severing communion with legitimate Papal authority (assuming your ecclesiology is the ecclesiology of the Church).

Actually, I would submit that that was within the rights of St. Photios as Oecumenical Patriarch. New Rome was the Imperial See, New Rome was Oecumenical Patriarch and the President of the Oecumenical Synods. Old Rome had a priority of honour because she was the First of the Imperial Sees, but Administratively, Constantinople had and has Primacy of Authority, because she has been Recognized as the Imperial See by Chalcedon.

Quote

ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š That being said St. Mark of Ephesus should have signed the union documents out of obedience to his Patriarch, Saint Maximos should have remained in union with Constaninople's heretics and the Orthodox should have remained in communion with the icon smashers - yet these were all glorified saints precisely because they did the exaxt opposite.

You believe the Oecumenical Throne to be in Heresy? If she is in Heresy then she can be corrected. I have made this point before, BUT if your posistion is not supported by an authoritive synod, and if the Patriarch is not Anathematized by either an Oecumenical Synod or the Patriarchal Synod of Constantinople, it is you who shall justly be condemned for the crime of which you falsely accused the Oecumenical Throne...it is you who are subject to anathema. If the Patriarch is not Convicted of Heresy (and even if one does not support her actions, to make the step from actions being unhelpful, damaging, or even unorthodox to being heretical and hence making the Patriarch subject to Anathema, is a significant step), those who oppose her and break communion with her, are either Schismatics or Heretics, in both cases diserving of Anathema, though out of mercy and by economy such a severe justice can be withheld.

Quote

So basicly you have a few relatively recent commentaries on a canon to justify an extreme papal positions for Constantinople, and you think that should outweigh the numerous saints whose lives contradict that? ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The many that you consider schismatics (the monastic elders that I name for instance) have been luminaries of the Church in this era, leading many people to scantity. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Hopefully when you go to Thessaloniki you will have the chance to spend some time on the Holy Mountain to appreciate the role of monasticism in the Church. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Or better yet since Souroti is on the city bus system you can go to the monastery of Saint John and tell the nuns there that Elder Paisios was a schismatic. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I'm sure they'll appreciate it - maybe you could even go to the relics of Saint John the Russian and tell him that he is a schismatic for turning away when Patriarch Meletios tried to venerate him!

No one's perfect, perhaps these Elders would have done well to learn Humility and Obedience as well as Piety and Rhetoric.

Being this site is pan-Orthodox it would probably not be a good idea as an administrator to allow people to keep calling Old Calendarists schismatic without comment but since I am an Old Calendarist sympathizer any action I would actually take in this direction would just likely look like I am pushing my own agenda so be nice

I have a hard time understanding how someone who breaks with their Bishop or how a Bishop who Breaks with their Metropolitan is not a Schismatic. Perhaps I am harder on them than many are, but the Patriarchate of Constantinople hardly receives a great deal of respect either; and all of Orthodoxy Recognizes his Canonicity (apart from teh aforementioned fringe groups).

Quote

On a personal note, I find it interesting that GisC believes the Phanar is right and so is obedient to it, and I believe the Pharar is wrong and believe that I should NOT be obedient to it, whereas Silouan is stuck beleiving the Phanar has authority that he must submit to even though he completely disagrees with it. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š While each of us has decided his course, I wonder in 20 years who will still be on the same course and who won't, purely from a human interest. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Will I be able to maintain my ecclesiastical allegiance given its difficulty? Will Silouan be able to stay submissive to the Ecumenist patriarch of Constantinople? And will GisC still be happy with the Phanar or eventually become disillusioned if things don't go his way and his high ideals prove unworkable? Who knows. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Maybe in 20 years we can rehash this thread

We are all fairly young, and with age generally comes moderation...I'm sure we'll all gravitate closer to each other, yet still remain decidedly apart (unless one or more of us undergoes a significant conversion )

Out of curiosity are the academic standards of Holy Cross so low that you could turn in a paper that violates most the rules of modern English capitalization?

Yes, mind you I also got away with that in Undergraduate School, though I had extended debates on the Issue with various Professors. With that said, there are some Professors who insist on my using Modern gramatical styles, for them I generally oblige, but these professors are few and far between. Others believe me to be strange and eccentric, but most tend to ignore it as it is not a significant issue if it is not an English Writing course.

You know that I don't think the old calendar is schismatic, as most of the Orthodox church uses it (i.e Russia, Serbia). ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š And you know that I personally have very close ties to an autonomous Orthodox church that follows the old calendar and is ironiclly under the EP. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š But I do make the distinction between being an old calendarist and old calendarism.

You may think my path is strange - a traditionalist under the jurisdictional of the EP - but it is a path which great ones have choosen, so I also follow them. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š Saint Paisii submited to those bishops opposed to hesychastic life, the kollydaves never formed their own synods.... and Saint Nektarios (a saint I feel particularly drawn towards!) remained obedient until the end despite the injustices suffered by him. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š So if that is the path that lies ahead, so be it. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I'd choose that anyday over joining the blasphemy of Matthew of Vresthena and saying the Orthodox Church has no grace in her mysteries. ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š The ecumenists and the controversy they bring to the church will not last forever - either they will disipate or the church will eventually expell them entirely.

I never said I didn`t like what you wrote.Seems like you are always whining about the content of the threads( E.A. debating muslim dude, this thread...etc.). It`s as if you are trying to control what`s being posted on this forum. Then again , as a "normal" Orthodox ,you`re probably better suited than the rest of us to decide what should and should not be posted.

Ok, I'm always whining and I'm a control freak. Everyone should think like me at all times.

ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š I never said I didn`t like what you wrote.Seems like you are always whining about the content of the threads( E.A. debating muslim dude, this thread...etc.). It`s as if you are trying to control what`s being posted on this forum. Then again , as a "normal" Orthodox ,you`re probably better suited than the rest of us to decide what should and should not be posted.

I think you just hit the nail on the head...there are a hand full of people who cannot stand a discussion when it does not fit their preconceived notions, that is to say, when you disagree with them on anything of even moderate (or sometimes minor) significance. There are many things I read here and elsewhere that I do not particularly carefor but censorship is NOT the Solution; Let people express themselves no matter how offensive or distasteful or 'abnormal' ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š it might be (which I take in this particular case to be anything not directly supported by the propaganda of Russian Churches (MP, OCA, ROCOR, etc.)).

I know, I know, its crazy, but I'm so darn smart! Of course my mind is superior to everyone else's..

Maybe they can just clone me and populate Mars or something, create the New Byzantium we're anxiously awaiting...

If I disagree with something so strongly that I would suggest that it should not even be posted...well, that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. I'm not about censorship, which is why I'd value the Ignore button. People could make whatever kind of outrageous, hateful, or erroneous statements and I actually wouldn't have to read it. You could ignore me, if you really wanted to, but who would, when I'm so smart?

Let people express themselves no matter how offensive or distasteful or 'abnormal' ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š it might be (which I take in this particular case to be anything not directly supported by the propaganda of Russian Churches (MP, OCA, ROCOR, etc.)).

I fear dont speak a word of Russian (well, I take that back, I can say yes, no, and count to ten...oh, I also learned how to properly salute a communist dictator; it's a good thing I took that semester of Russian ) ...but thank God for babelfish; it may not be a universal translator, but at least it's getting better (and is much faster than a dictionary)

If I disagree with something so strongly that I would suggest that it should not even be posted...well, that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. I'm not about censorship, which is why I'd value the Ignore button.

I think that "Natural Selection" tends to take place in forums if we are patient. Obnoxious people tend to leave after a few months of ranting, and cool heads prevail (unless of course, the moderators themselves are not cool heads). If you don't feed a troll, they starve and move on since they need reactions from others to live. If someone says something stupid at a party, don't we simply ignore it and, in a way, "dissociate" from them so that the party can go on? If we react to what they say, we just give them the power they need to spoil the party- and there is usually a drunken brawl between a couple of testosterone pumped idiots when all you want to do is have a drink and a chat.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Indeed, which I why I never tell anyone to do anything, just present my take on what they say and sometimes provide them with the request to take my opinion into consideration. They still say and do whatever they want. It takes all kinds, even the crazies*

*ps. thats a really affectionate nickname for no one in particular. Everyone says crazy things sometimes...

I think you just hit the nail on the head...there are a hand full of people who cannot stand a discussion when it does not fit their preconceived notions, that is to say, when you disagree with them on anything of even moderate (or sometimes minor) significance. There are many things I read here and elsewhere that I do not particularly carefor but censorship is NOT the Solution; Let people express themselves no matter how offensive or distasteful or 'abnormal' it might be (which I take in this particular case to be anything not directly supported by the propaganda of Russian Churches (MP, OCA, ROCOR, etc.)).

pps. GiC, I completely diagree with you on the issue of "Russian Church propaganda," but I wanted to tell you it was very easy for me to read this post. Thanks!:)

If I disagree with something so strongly that I would suggest that it should not even be posted...well, that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. I'm not about censorship, which is why I'd value the Ignore button. People could make whatever kind of outrageous, hateful, or erroneous statements and I actually wouldn't have to read it. You could ignore me, if you really wanted to, but who would, when I'm so smart?

This has been a really funny day

Choirfriend : I find alot of your posts to be insightful and heartfelt. And if there were an ignore button, I would not ignore you.

Logged

"Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names." - John F. Kennedy (1917-1963)

As far as I know, the only bishop that has authority over my jurisdiction is +Basil of Wichita and Mid America, and he's proven to be a good stewart of God's light.

And last I checked we had a system of equals governing the church, with some recieveing honour among them, not authority above them. When one begins to abuse that honor, one begins to become a demagogue, no longer following Christ but his own ambitions. There are times for correction on theological issues (which is the duty of all the memebers of Christ's Church, not soley the bishop's). But when one begins to exhort his authority over others in a manner of a corruped king, and uses the cannons of the church to further his aims, he is no longer worthy of that position.

If I wanted a Universal Head that wasn't Christ Jesus in the church, I would have opted to other planes.

I think that "Natural Selection" tends to take place in forums if we are patient. Obnoxious people tend to leave after a few months of ranting, and cool heads prevail (unless of course, the moderators themselves are not cool heads).

As I've said before, this is how I generally write, it is Second Nature to me at this point. Typing in this manner is not what takes effort, conforming to the expectations of everyone else is what would require 'an exertion of effort.' I believe that it is the Content of my posts that bothers people, and they try to take it out on my Gramatical Style.

PARENT ON

Actually, it is the content of this post that outlines the problem. There's another name for "second nature": it's called

If someone says something stupid at a party, don't we simply ignore it and, in a way, "dissociate" from them so that the party can go on? If we react to what they say, we just give them the power they need to spoil the party- and there is usually a drunken brawl between a couple of testosterone pumped idiots when all you want to do is have a drink and a chat.

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.